You're viewing a single thread.
It's kinda unavoidable that if one major power loses influence, another will benefit from the vacuum. You can't really oppose your own country's imperialism without making the case that other countries taking advantage is an acceptable risk.
This is more or less the story of WWI. With the increasing tensions and military buildup, socialists of countries across Europe formed the Second International and agreed in the Basel Declaration, which said that they would use the crisis to rise up simultaneously against every imperialist power and put an end to both the war and to capitalism:
If a war threatens to break out, it is the duty of the working classes and their parliamentary representatives in the countries involved supported by the coordinating activity of the International Socialist Bureau to exert every effort in order to prevent the outbreak of war by the means they consider most effective, which naturally vary according to the sharpening of the class struggle and the sharpening of the general political situation.
In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.
But once the war actually broke out, most of them found reasons to rally around their country's flag. German socialists pointed to the conditions of serfdom under the Tsar and pointed to the massive colonial empires of Britain and France, while British and French socialists argued that Germany undemocratic under the Kaiser and had more responsibility for starting the war. They mostly agreed that both sides were bad, but they said they were only fighting to safeguard their countries "against defeat" rather than for victory, but regardless, for all intents and purposes it was the same thing. Of course, in all of these countries, there was considerable political pressure and propaganda pushing them to fall in line and to regard the enemy as worse, and many people did what was personally advantageous regardless of what they had said previously.
There was only one exception, where the socialists took advantage of the war to overthrow their government, without regard for the possibility that it could help the other side, and they did end up ceding a fair bit of land too, but they were able to put a stop that that theater of the meat grinder everyone was being fed into.
The way I understand the meme, it's not saying anti-imperialism is wrong. It's saying that being a tankie, i.e. simping for china and russia doesn't qualify as anti-imperialism.
As near as I can tell, advocating for peaceful, dovish, isolationist policies is enough for someone to be considered a tankie (ironically enough). WWI era socialists who did not fall in line behind their governments certainly faced similar accusations.
Since neither Russia nor China is peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, what are you on about?
And there you have it. If you advocate for peaceful, dovish, isolationist policies, you are a tankie because you're letting other nations that aren't those things win. The exact same logic that caused "leftists" to rally around their own imperialist governments in WWI. Germany wasn't socialist, so why should the British socialists let them win? Britain wasn't socialist, so why should the German socialists let them win?
The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany. (Bukvoyed and Semkovsky give more direct expression to the “thought”, or rather want of thought, which they share with Trotsky.) To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution made it clear, that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to avoid this truth, while Semkovsky (an opportunist who is more useful to the working class than all the others, thanks to his naively frank reiteration of bourgeois wisdom) blurted out the following: “This is nonsense, because either Germany or Russia can win”
What is the substitute proposed for the defeat slogan? It is that of “neither victory nor defeat." This, however, is nothing but a paraphrase of the “defence of the fatherland” slogan. It means shifting the issue to the level of a war between governments (who, according to the content of this slogan, are to keep to their old stand, “retain their positions"), and not to the level of the struggle of the oppressed classes against their governments! It means justifying the chauvinism of all the imperialist nations, whose bourgeoisie are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are “only” fighting “against defeat”.
On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s “own” government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country. Those who accept the “neither victory-nor-defeat” slogan can only be hypocritically in favour of the class struggle, of “disrupting the class truce”; in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of actual, not verbal disruption of the “class truce”, of acceptance of the class struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties experienced by its government and its bourgeoisie in order to overthrow them. This, however, cannot be achieved or striven for, without desiring the defeat of one’s own government and without contributing to that defeat.
When, before the war, the Italian Social-Democrats raised the question of a mass strike, the bourgeoisie replied, no doubt correctly from their own point of view, that this would be high treason, and that Social-Democrats would be dealt with as traitors. That is true, just as it is true that fraternisation in the trenches is high treason. Those who write against “high treason”, as Bukvoyed does, or against the “disintegration of Russia”, as Semkovsky does, are adopting the bourgeois, not the proletarian point of view. A proletarian cannot deal a class blow at his government or hold out (in fact) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of the “foreign” country which is at war with “our side”, without committing “high treason”, without contributing to the defeat, to the disintegration of his “own”, imperialist “Great” Power.
Whoever is in favour of the slogan of “neither victory nor defeat” is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the present-day ruling classes.
The Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War, V.I. Lenin
That's an extremely longwinded way to avoid the question.
You asked what I'm on about and I told you what I'm on about. No question avoided.
You posted all that, and didn’t even answer the damn question.
What question did I not answer?
Since neither Russia nor China is peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, what are you on about?
If the question is 'what are you on about' pretty much any answer is valid.
You know what the question is. We both know you aren’t stupid.
I answered that. What I said is what I'm on about.
Maybe you can rephrase that to mean something clearer, if my answer isn't what you're looking for?
Neither Russia or China are peaceful, dovish, or isolationist. You know that, you aren’t an idiot. The fact that you don’t care, and are only ignoring imperialism when it’s a nation you like doing it is what makes you a tankie, and a hypocrite.
I feel like I answered literally exactly this in my response.
What you're saying is exactly what British social democrats would have said to people opposing the war, that Germany isn't peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, that they know that, they don't care, and are only ignoring imperialism when Germany does it, and it's also what German social democrats would have said to people opposing the war, that Britain isn't peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, that they know that, they don't care, and are only ignoring imperialism when Britain does it, and so on.
WWI era socialists who did not fall in line behind their governments certainly faced similar accusations.
Eugene Debs went to prison for that exact reason.
Listen, I'm as anti-imperialist as the next guy. But realistically if the core of capital that has nearly unopposed dominion over the entire world recedes, another entity that deserves the moniker of 'empire' completely equally will step in to fill the void! And if that's the case, we should just support the most morally righteous empire. Ours >:-D
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Turtle Island managed to not have white people using such logic for thousands of years just fine
if one major power loses influence, another will benefit from the vacuum.
Multipolarism is not a vacuum. Hypocritical "Rules based world order" delusion backed by sycophantic colonies to tyranical CIA is a propaganda tool that deludes an empire into over reaching and collapse and "the vacuum".
I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that imperialism is justified because of the possibility of a vacuum, I'm saying that the possibility of a vacuum is an acceptable risk for the sake of opposing imperialism.